Help Me Come To Agree With The Church On Immigration

[emarkp]

This Stake President was a good person, didn't break any laws, well one, has a family here.

Other than immigration, employment and tax laws?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[Tacenda]

Other than immigration, employment and tax laws?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

You missed where I put he broke one law.

[ERayR]

The only reason they weren't legally married is because the laws didn't allow it. Seems pretty similar to me.

You seem to have trouble reconciling how someone can be in good standing in the church and not obey the immigration laws. Do you have the same concern for all laws? Say traffic laws? City zoning ordinance? etc?

[thesometimesaint]

I have no problems with immigration. Legal immigration should be made easier and even though the US has over 1 million legal immigrants per year, I'd love to see it larger. Illegality, that I have a problem with. Violation of the law, followed by the church pooh-poohing the violation is something I have a problem with.

I see the muddling of legal and illegal crossing to be part of the dishonesty of the amnesty side of the immigration debate. Legal immigration is essential and laudable, and I gave examples of several people in my own family and environs who are assets to the US and who are legally here.

The US to date has a net negative immigration from Mexico

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

No one in government is proposing another amnesty. What they are proposing is a path to citizenship. Now if we can just get the Congress off their duffs.

[ERayR]

I have no problems with immigration. Legal immigration should be made easier and even though the US has over 1 million legal immigrants per year, I'd love to see it larger. Illegality, that I have a problem with. Violation of the law, followed by the church pooh-poohing the violation is something I have a problem with.

I see the muddling of legal and illegal crossing to be part of the dishonesty of the amnesty side of the immigration debate. Legal immigration is essential and laudable, and I gave examples of several people in my own family and environs who are assets to the US and who are legally here.

What do you suggest we do with those who were brought here by parents when very small. The were raised here . Their lives and culture is USA. Many have no ties to their country of origin. They are illegal because of someone elses actions. Were they to be sent to their country of origin they would have nobody. What do you do with those? It is not a simple problem.

For what it is worth to you I used to be where you are at now. I am now at a point of "Wow this is one complicated problem". It does bother be when someone starts complaining about the illegal immigrants being baptized and holding positions because they are breaking the law when they them selves are breaking some law themselves everyday and think nothing of it.

[Deborah]

Honest and true to the law that says it's illegal to enter the United States without obeying the laws of immigration. Obeying the law the same way my paternal grandfather did when he came here after leaving Minsk and landing on Ellis Island on May 30, 1914. His right of immigration was properly processed there and he entered this country legally. Some years later, he officially became a citizen.

As I mentioned my grandmother's family came through Ellis Island as well. It did not take years to process and people had to pass a series of exams and investigations into criminal activity. I would like to see something like that on the borders. Now that would not nullify everyone from crossing illegally but it might make more do so legally knowing they wouldn't have to live in fear. And as I said before why should people take the laws on immigration seriously when the federal government doesn't?

And btw, anyone who breaks speed limit laws is breaking the law and acting illegally. Should we arrest them?

Edited March 9, 2013 by Deborah

[Freedom]

I really did have a good laugh over Freedom's response to emarkp. But only because after pouring out his heart in a very well-reasoned and cogent presentation of his concerns, hoping someone here might be able to help set his tormented mind at rest, emarkp gets a response from someone who seems to treat his valid concerns as if we were only having a debate over something as frivolous as which hamburger chain produces the best french fries. The laugh came when I imagined the exasperated expression on poor emarkp's face when he first read what Freedom had to say. Please understand I was once an aspiring comedy writer, and so I often see humor in situations where others would fail to do so. With this in mind, please forgive me if I seem somewhat cavalier at times.

My point was that the concerns seem to be based on a false assumption, that the church is saying we must break the law. The church was simply supporting a government initiative and this initiative has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the gospel.

[Freedom]

As a missionary I largely taught Mexican immigrants. When ever we would drive into a barrio, everybody would scatter thinking we were immigration. These people were struggling to stay alive, their families back home were living in abject poverty and under constant thread from corrupt police officers and soldiers. The Republican rhetoric is irresponsible and based on ignorance. The vast majority of illegal immigrants come here to stay alive. The role of the church is to bring these people salvation so that they can rise above the poverty and despondency.

You are out of the thread: political bashing

[jwhitlock]

For what it is worth to you I used to be where you are at now. I am now at a point of "Wow this is one complicated problem". It does bother be when someone starts complaining about the illegal immigrants being baptized and holding positions because they are breaking the law when they them selves are breaking some law themselves everyday and think nothing of it.

There are probably none of us that can say we consistently obey the law. While we often talk about traffic laws as a case in point, there are troubling number of laws that we break that we are either unaware of, or we break because we don't follow some bureaucrats's interpretation of how that law should be applied. There are laws that most of us just simply ignore because we find them ridiculous or oppressive or burdensome, or that they conflict with moral or ethical standards we have. How does someone answer a question about whether they pay the appropriate amount of taxes, especially federal income taxes? The laws are so convoluted that there's no real right answer to the question, even though politicians like to throw weasel phrases such as "fair share" around.

The whole point is that absolutely no one can claim that they fully honor and obey the law. In fact, I would posit that such a person, if they were to exist, wouldn't make a particularly good member of the church. Hence, we each need to find the balance between what Caesar demands, and what the Spirit whispers for us to do. Situations and circumstances differ, and I applaud the church for trying to address this particularly difficult issue while keeping in mind the needs of those who are trying their best to come to Christ, despite their own difficult circumstances.

[Duncan]

In my parents ward immigration is a huge issue with a lot of immigrants and families coming over. Something that gets me is here in Canada you need to have a ton of paperwork done and sometimes solicit others to help build a case as to why someone should be brought over and so in that ward these types of things happen with various appeals. I get that they need to do it but I don't agree that it should be allowed in Church and just because you are a member doesn't mean you should feel obligated to sign something.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Duncan

[BCSpace]

I had a recent deeply spiritual experience which took away much of the pain I've felt about this whole thing. It's allowed me to have some measure of joy again at church for the first time in months. President Uchtdorf's interview was like a kick to the stomach.

So how do I resolve this? How can I change my view to be more in line with where the church is going? I've reached out to my local leaders and gotten nothing.

As a fellow conservative and believer (and one who hears about the Church's immigration policy constantly being taught to Bishops and Stake presidents so they don't get in trouble with the law etc.), I don't think you have to worry about anything nor do you have to change any notions or mindsets regarding this issue. The Church uses "PC" language to present whatever face it needs to present to deflect criticism without changing doctrine, I don't like it anymore than you do, but one would do well to remember the "wheat with the tares" doctrine.

Also in this case "agree with thine enemy". Notice also that Uchtdorf said they share the same values. This is not the same as sharing the same modus operandi. For example, everyone wants to help the poor, but according to official LDS doctrine there is a right way (Law of Consecration which requires and is based on free market Capitalism just as God's doctrine of salvation is based on the same) and a wrong way (Socialism). So likewise notice what Uchtdorf said about illegal immigrants, that they know better than to break the law. Notice also that Obama's public plan is not the same as his private plan and statements to his base. Wouldn't it be good to agree where we can agree and hold Obama to his much moderated public plan than get stuck with the private one?

Look up and read the "Utah Compact" regarding immigration which was signed by the Church. Notice that there is nothing in there in opposition to the law being enforced nor anything else that a conservative would disagree with.

Agenda-driven homosexuals continue to be disappointed by the Church because they assume the Church has changed on the matter, because of it's "PC" language when they hear the language and yet they still cannot practice their lifestyle and remain in good standing with the Church and self identification as a homosexual person or being also runs contrary to the repentance process on this issue. The same still exists on the issues of Socialism and those who want to throw open the borders to bring in warriors to change the culture. Recall that the Church is in the business of saving souls and they can't abandon the other half of the population. They're just making it as easy as they can for that half because that half is always starts out being in full-blown conflict with LDS doctrine and tends to be, imho, one of the greatest reasons for falling away from the Church. Their concepts of equality and agency run counter to the Church. Their notion of salvation is physically and forcefully based rather than spiritually based just like the Jews in Jesus' time who were looking for a political Savior and missed the Savior himself.

Recall also that the Church did not publicly disagree with or denounce Sandy Stake President DeVisser's Stake Conference speech earlier this year, He taught nothing but official doctrine from the pulpit and applied it to our daily lives.

Edited March 9, 2013 by BCSpace

[Kenngo1969]

I think part of the solution to the problem is learning to think of the law in a more nuanced way. (And I say this as one of the more fervent "law-and-order" types to inhabit this Board. ) It might satisfy our need to perceive the world in an orderly way to simply say, "Breaking the law is breaking the law ... period." But if that were so, carried to its logical conclusion, everything would (or could) become a capital crime: "Jaywalking is theft is robbery is rape is murder." Kill 'em all! (And there are some places in the world where the law still is that arbitrary.) Some things are mala prohibita ... wrong because the law says they're wrong ... and some things are mala in se ... inherently, morally wrong, such as rape or murder. And even man's law, as imperfect as it is, recognizes gradations in the wrongfulness of acts: justifiable homicide versus involuntary manslaughter versus voluntary manslaughter versus depraved-indifference murder versus malice-aforethought, premeditated murder.

Yes, I believe the injunctions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exhorting its members to be law abiding, such as Doctrine and Covenants 134 or Article of Faith 12. But all laws aren't created equal: violations of immigration law aren't mala in se, but rather mala prohibita. And on the scale of criminal wrongfulness, they certainly don't rise to the wrongfulness of, say, rape or aggravated murder. Anybody who's spent any length of time in an area that's not part of the "First World" has to have had at least the fleeting thought that if they lived in many of these areas, they, too, might well conclude they potentially had much to gain (and not all that much to lose) by emigrating to somewhere else, even if faced with the prospect of doing so illegally. I think the Church's favored approach to illegal immigration recognizes these facts.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[BCSpace]

Yes, I believe the injunctions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints exhorting its members to be law abiding, such as Doctrine and Covenants 134 or Article of Faith 12. But all laws aren't created equal: violations of immigration law aren't mala in se, but rather mala prohibita. And on the scale of criminal wrongfulness, they certainly don't rise to the wrongfulness of, say, rape or aggravated murder. Anybody who's spent any length of time in an area that's not part of the "First World" has to have had at least the fleeting thought that if they lived in many of these areas, they, too, might well conclude they potentially had much to gain (and not all that much to lose) by emigrating to somewhere else, even if faced with the prospect of doing so illegally. I think the Church's favored approach to illegal immigration recognizes these facts.

Yet John 10:1 still applies, This nation is a beacon of freedom and salvation to many and since it was set up by Christ to be such and to remain so we are required to worship the God of the land, then entering this land is the temporal equivalent of entering the kingdom of heaven; "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."

[jwhitlock]

Yet John 10:1 still applies, This nation is a beacon of freedom and salvation to many and since it was set up by Christ to be such and to remain so we are required to worship the God of the land, then entering this land is the temporal equivalent of entering the kingdom of heaven; "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."

Did you actually equate the Federal government to Christ with this analogy??

[emarkp]

What do you suggest we do with those who were brought here by parents when very small. The were raised here . Their lives and culture is USA. Many have no ties to their country of origin. They are illegal because of someone elses actions. Were they to be sent to their country of origin they would have nobody. What do you do with those? It is not a simple problem.

Yep, it's a sticky wicket. It would help if the federal government would actually enforce the law to actually reduce that flow and those problems. From a political perspective, I have no intent to consent to an amnesty if the borders are still highways, visas aren't tracked, and illegal aliens are treated more deferentially than I or my children are.

Furthermore, what do we do when parents have committed crimes and are imprisoned? Should we not send them to jail because they have children? Seems like the merciful thing to do. Getting put into foster care isn't exactly peaches for the kids of criminals who are imprisoned for non-immigration crimes, yet it happens every day. Is that problem any less soluable?

It does bother be when someone starts complaining about the illegal immigrants being baptized and holding positions because they are breaking the law when they them selves are breaking some law themselves everyday and think nothing of it.

This I find to be a childish attitude. We all agree that there are degrees of laws. Speeding tickets are minor and fixing them means typically paying the fine. Fixing Illegal entry means getting back out of the country.

[emarkp]

The US to date has a net negative immigration from Mexico

http://www.pewhispan...d-perhaps-less/

No one in government is proposing another amnesty. What they are proposing is a path to citizenship. Now if we can just get the Congress off their duffs.

Sophistry. We have by some accounts 10-20% of the entire population of Mexico in our country. The ebb of immigration that we're experiencing is due to economic slowdown and will climb back up if the economy improves. "Path to citizenship" is just the current neologism. None of this addresses the church's position, but is more of the childish arguments of politicians.

[BlueDreams]

Furthermore, what do we do when parents have committed crimes and are imprisoned? Should we not send them to jail because they have children? Seems like the merciful thing to do. Getting put into foster care isn't exactly peaches for the kids of criminals who are imprisoned for non-immigration crimes, yet it happens every day. Is that problem any less soluable?

I'm pretty sure immigration is a civil violation and not technically a crime. It's still comparing apples to oranges. Though speeding violations are by far minor in comparison to immigration violations, they're still under the same code of violations. It's not in the same ball-park as, say, someone who shoplifts or kills somebody. Ironically, because of this caveat it often means that criminals have more legal rights than undocumented workers. It is treated more like if you were contesting a fine for speeding than if you were getting a hearing for homicide: no jury, no need for a lawyer or representation, etc.....deportation, under the law is technically not even considered punishment. So no, what is done to criminals is not comparable IMHO.

with luv,

BD

[jwhitlock]

Another aspect of this whole immigration thing is to look at where many of those immigrants are coming from. While we struggle to deal with the progressing corruption of our legal system here in the United States, think about what it means to honor and obey the law in Mexico, given the rampant corruption there. How does a Mexican member of the church deal with that kind of conflict? And it gets worse as you go further south. When they come here, legally or illegally, they bring with them their perspective on what that means. To them, government isn't to be trusted, and if a police officer is coming your way, it's best to try to ignore them and saunter off in another direction - unless you want trouble that can only be rectified with a bribe. I suspect that to many of them, obey they law means to not make waves, and to ignore it whenever possible, since if you try to be "legal" you just end up getting in trouble.

We're not far behind them. As some on this thread have noted, when you try to do the "right thing", it can cause more problems and money than it's worth. And all the while, corrupt politicians are hatching schemes to circumvent the law anyway and change the rules to suit their own agendas. To a Mexican who's trying to feed his family by finding work in the United States, immigration laws don't make much sense (and don't to us either); they're just something to work around and not get caught.

That doesn't make it right, but it does indicate what we're dealing with. If the powers that be can't take such things into account and come up with something workable - which is not something government does well in the first place - then the problem is only going to get worse. I believe the church recognizes that it's a mess, and is looking for creative ways of balancing a corrupted political system with the needs of the people it serves.

[ERayR]

Yep, it's a sticky wicket. It would help if the federal government would actually enforce the law to actually reduce that flow and those problems. From a political perspective, I have no intent to consent to an amnesty if the borders are still highways, visas aren't tracked, and illegal aliens are treated more deferentially than I or my children are.

The federal government has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo on several levels and ignore current law because of this. The question, you posed, however was how to reconcile the LDS stance on law and order with the current developments in the illegal alien problem. I assert that the church has no obligation, indeed it has no right, to ask citizenship status before baptizing or extending callings.

Furthermore, what do we do when parents have committed crimes and are imprisoned? Should we not send them to jail because they have children? Seems like the merciful thing to do. Getting put into foster care isn't exactly peaches for the kids of criminals who are imprisoned for non-immigration crimes, yet it happens every day. Is that problem any less soluable?

You seem to be advocating using social programs for illegal aliens and seem to be conflating two different classes of infractions. I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV but according to my understanding immigration laws are misdemeanors pretty much on the same level as a disturbing the peace violation. You are also misunderstanding the problem I was speaking of. I was speaking of children brought to this country as small children and raised here then as adults they are detained for deportation to a country, that despite it being their county of birth, is a foreign country to them.

This I find to be a childish attitude. We all agree that there are degrees of laws. Speeding tickets are minor and fixing them means typically paying the fine. Fixing Illegal entry means getting back out of the country.

Your attitude is exactly what I pointed out. Somebody else breaks a law and they shouldn't have a temple recommend or church membership. When it is our own personal law breaking, we are much more lenient. Its only minor, just pay the fine. You are right there are degrees of laws. As I understand there are misdemeanors and felonies and there is another category called civil. (Not sure how it all fits together with criminal) Felonies are such things as murder, assault, theft and other such actions. In the misdemeanor class we find such things as traffic violations, trespass and immigration laws, etc. Fixing illegal immigration means whatever current laws allow. This depends on circumstances and is subject to changes and will be changed in the future. This is what the current public conversation is about, changing those laws. If the current proposed changes are implemented fixing it may well be filling out a few forms and paying a fine

Edited March 9, 2013 by ERayR

[changed]

A little while ago I was in NY...

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”...

I celebrate the principles that this country was founded on.. it seems strange to me that many conservatives, who also claim to uphold original foundations, do not understand the melting pot that this country is...

[Deborah]

This I find to be a childish attitude. We all agree that there are degrees of laws. Speeding tickets are minor and fixing them means typically paying the fine. Fixing Illegal entry means getting back out of the country.

I think you miss the point of Elder Uchtdorf's comments. He was supporting a change in the law. If the law is changed these people wouldn't be breaking the law so the discussion is moot.

[tyler90az]

Motivated by this thread, and this FAIR post... This is an issue which has caused me a lot of personal pain in the last few years. I hope someone can help me on this (critics of the church will be ignored).

Note: In the FAIR post, I was the commenter posting as "dangerdad" (it's a tag I've used more recently, being more pronounceable than 'emarkp' -- but then I found I already had registered here with 'emarkp').

The church's response to the issue of immigration started causing me serious discomfort back in 2011 (this press release in particular). Theses passages made me see red:

It read to me as both insulting and childlike in understanding. Especially since some of this seemed to be a reaction to Arizona's SB1070, which was about enforcing existing law.

Some of my concerns included:

1. The statements appear to contradict church doctrine, including following the law (D&C 58:21, AoF 12)
   
2. The language used is not legal, but is rather a modern politically-correct term invented on at whim of a judge and popularized. The legal term is “illegal alien”. The phrase “undocumented immigrant” is contradictory because all immigrants pass through a legal process, including appropriate documents. This neologism is the same kind of push that softened “abortion” to “choice” and more recently “reproductive choice/health”.
   
3. Illegal aliens are not allowed to work in the United States. Thus, in order to have an income they must be violating tax law and likely committing identity fraud. Furthermore, any alien who re-enters the country after being ejected is committing a felony.
   
4. The bit about mass expulsion seemed to be a total disconnect from reality -- no one is proposing it except the occasional random voice on the street. Additionally, the church posted the statement in Spanish. So I guess we know they're not aiming it the many illegal aliens from Asia, Africa, etc.?
   

I presented my Bishop with my concerns and asked a few questions including:

1. Is it in fact church policy that local leaders are not to report illegal aliens to immigration authorities?
   
2. If this indeed is church policy, how can I teach my children D&C 58:21 and AoF 12?
   
3. What other crimes (including felonies) may I commit and still receive a temple recommend?
   

Then I found out from my EQ president that when he was on his mission in TX (about 10 years ago) he recalled that temple recommends were denied to illegal aliens. I guess that policy changed shortly after that, since "The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood."

I never got any reply of consequence. My Bishop confirmed the policy but didn't have any answers to my other questions.

I have never seen anyone seriously address the legal and logical concerns I and others of the "enforce the existing laws" mindset have presented. I've seen continued comments (like the recent ones by Pres. Uchtdorf) about being merciful -- but we put convicted criminals in jail (which separates them from their families) and we deport illegal aliens.

In the FAIR post I again felt that Lance Starr (who apparently doesn't agree with me on this issue) wasn't being honest. He dismissed tax and identity fraud by saying:

When I confronted him with the point that the I-9 form requires a physical card, he admitted

Which means they're not just making up an SSN number to give to an employer. They make up a number and then get a forgery to show the employer.

I repeatedly see advocates soften the reality of the law breaking (and crime, and harm) that takes place with illegal immigration and belittle the concerns of people on my side of the issue. This doesn't convince me they're right, it just shows them to be intellectual frauds to me.

I see the continued effort for amnesty as the new slave trade in the United States. It is an intentional effort to import an underclass for purposes of exploitation. The church seems to excuse that and encourage illegal behavior. Pushing amnesty instead of the rule of law legitimizes the entire slave trade IMO.

But it seems I'm on the losing side of this issue, especially given Pres. Uchtdorf's comments.

I had a recent deeply spiritual experience which took away much of the pain I've felt about this whole thing. It's allowed me to have some measure of joy again at church for the first time in months. President Uchtdorf's interview was like a kick to the stomach.

So how do I resolve this? How can I change my view to be more in line with where the church is going? I've reached out to my local leaders and gotten nothing.

Why is it so upsetting to you? Did an illegal immigrant give you a traumatic experience or what?

[emarkp]

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”...

I celebrate the principles that this country was founded on.. it seems strange to me that many conservatives, who also claim to uphold original foundations, do not understand the melting pot that this country is...

I support the melting pot. However, we're not melting right now, we're bifurcating. Furthermore, we want people to come through the front door via legal immigration.

Again, I have no problem with legal immigration. What's your point?

[emarkp]

I think you miss the point of Elder Uchtdorf's comments. He was supporting a change in the law. If the law is changed these people wouldn't be breaking the law so the discussion is moot.

Yes, he's supporting changing the law to ignore current law, while church policy encourages people to break the law.

[emarkp]

Your attitude is exactly what I pointed out. Somebody else breaks a law and they shouldn't have a temple recommend or church membership. When it is our own personal law breaking, we are much more lenient. Its only minor, just pay the fine. You are right there are degrees of laws. As I understand there are misdemeanors and felonies and there is another category called civil.

As I posted in my OP, re-entering if you've received a deportation order is a felony. I believe that the first entry is an infraction.

Furthermore, it is impossible for an illegal alien to become right with the law if they're still in the country. Hence you cannot be in good legal standing as an illegal alien if you're sitting in your temple recommend interview. If I've committed an infraction and I'm taking steps to rectify that, it would make sense to give that a pass in a TR interview. If my infraction is my very presence, how exactly am I trying to make things right while I'm still here?